Training deficit harms industry: Education pioneer

Training deficit harms industry: Education pioneer

Creating the 21st-century financial advisor takes more than what in-house training programs can offer, say some seasoned advisors.

Calling these programs biased and too narrowly focused, Sam Albanese, who spearheaded Seneca College’s Financial Services Practitioner Programme, feels that given the current state of the industry, it is more important than ever for the next generation of financial advisors to have a more global, macro perspective.

“I think this is crucially important because the consumer is a more complex individual than ever before,” explains Albanese, who has more than 30 years of experience in the financial services industry. “I think we are doing a disservice to the client if the only thing we are presenting is an advised option, when we are able to be more objective.”

This, Albanese feels, is inevitably what occurs when to-be advisors are trained by programs offered by companies such as Manulife Financial, Edward Jones and the Investor’s Group. Though the training is adequate, he says, molding the advisor to serve a company’s objectives is wherein the conflict lies.

“(In-house training programs) are more focused, for obvious reasons, towards the company … to some degree it’s prejudiced, whether you like it or not,” he says. “When you go into an in-house program … you take whatever the company is giving you. You don’t know what you can’t argue.” (continued on Page 2)